Mystery Shopping Thread 25 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

MysteryMan00

missymouse wrote: »

Yes, where's the next level
to go to with mystery shopping after GF and MF?

I agree with the last poster. I don't think there is a definite 'next step' -rather it's further steps - expand the number of agencies you're with and you will see more jobs and a wider range of jobs.

I was in your position around 6 mths ago as I expanded my shopping. I spent a labourious afternoon signing up with loads of agencies. Some had/have work in my area that suits me, some don't.

But you only know after you've signed up and had a look. Some jobs that others seem to like, I don't. Some jobs that are talked about don't seem to show up for me or in my area.

So just have a look and have fun!

shell_belle

MysteryMan00 wrote: »

I've never had to go as far as threaten legal action. I wouldn't do it as an early stage response. And I'm sure that's not being suggested.

I've only had to be really firm on one job. One section of the report was ambiguous as to which part of the experience it wanted describing - so I erred on the safe side and gave them more than (as it turned out) they wanted. After some to-and-fro I was told that apparently the client has rejected the report because of this. The solution, of course, was just to delete the additional narrative (if it mattered so much!) - after all, the tasks had been correctly performed and written up.

I explained my confusion and suggested that if they wanted to withhold payment on this basis that they explain there issues and why I hadn't met the brief in detail. I think this sounded like too much hassle (and they probably knew their client was being silly) so they paid.

No legal threats, no bad feeling generated - firm but reasonable and measured responses that escalate as the push back continues.

In this case, I didn't need to come on heavier. Unfortunate if anyone gets to the point that they have to. If I had to resort to threatening the law then, for me, the relationship is over as the trust and all reason (on their part - at least IMO) must have gone.

Well it looks like I may be having to take legal action as the reply I have had states that the lack of GeoV code is not acceptable to the client! I have never heard the likes in my life! The response also does not address any of the points that I have outlined about proof of the visit! it does however agree to terminate my relationship with the company which I am glad to never be working for again...

MysteryMan00

shell_belle wrote: »

Well it looks like I may be having to take legal action as the reply I have had states that the lack of GeoV code is not acceptable to the client! I have never heard the likes in my life! The response also does not address any of the points that I have outlined about proof of the visit! it does however agree to terminate my relationship with the company which I am glad to never be working for again...

If you just get ignored then, absolutely, you have to up the ante. I hope it didn't sound as though I was saying you were being unreasonable in your case.

As a general point - has anyone noticed less and less trust being given by MSCs? More and more evidence required that you were there and things were as you say they were? To the point that it really isn't worth doing when they want:

- Photo of receipt
- Photo of location (I saw one brief that wanted you to be standing in front of it HOLDING A NEWSPAPER!!
- Photo to support virtually every single thing checked
- Name of person you spoke to
- What was on the left and right
- The phone number on the receipt
- GPS data from your phone

Gets to the point that by the time they want so much evidence and have laden the brief with so many threats re non-payment that you think "Well, you can stick it!"

Partly unrelated rant over! Sorry!

shell_belle

MysteryMan00 wrote: »

If you just get ignored then, absolutely, you have to up the ante. I hope it didn't sound as though I was saying you were being unreasonable in your case.

As a general point - has anyone noticed less and less trust being given by MSCs? More and more evidence required that you were there and things were as you say they were? To the point that it really isn't worth doing when they want:

- Photo of receipt
- Photo of location (I saw one brief that wanted you to be standing in front of it HOLDING A NEWSPAPER!!
- Photo to support virtually every single thing checked
- Name of person you spoke to
- What was on the left and right
- The phone number on the receipt
- GPS data from your phone

Gets to the point that by the time they want so much evidence and have laden the brief with so many threats re non-payment that you think "Well, you can stick it!"

Partly unrelated rant over! Sorry!

No not at all! Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was actually hoping that I would not have to escalate it further however, what I am most greatly annoyed about is the fact that I have carried out well over 100 jobs for this company and they are allowing their allocator to claim that I actually carried this out from home (my old address showed up on GeoV) when I could get it to work and on the Friday at another job when it was storm weather up here it didn't work at all but I carried out in good faith thinking that proof from the place I visited and a phone call from the client to confirm they had spoken to me to one of their work mobiles (as per their brief) would be enough! To then be accused of job fraud is just not on and I am currently drafting a letter to them to let them know that their email stating this is libel and I will be taking it further. I don't think thats unreasonable tbh as their behaviour on this matter is shocking. And without being rude to clients but can someone tell me how GeoV can even be understood by them. It's purely a MS tool.

Big_Graeme

shell_belle wrote: »

And without being rude to clients but can someone tell me how GeoV can even be understood by them. It's purely a MS tool.

It provides a date, time and location stamp that is decrypted by the MSC and provide on the report, if the brief states that it is one of the things you must acquire then you have to acquire it, same as not providing a store front photo.

Tolteca87

The GPS on maps on my phone always puts me a street south and west of where I and it really are, so I've never gone for compulsory Geoverify visits.

mskitten2904

Just a quickie, I've edited an alert a few times. Sorry if you got notified each time as I'm not sure if it doesn't re send.

MysteryMe

Shellebelle, what's the first letter of the offending MSC please so that the rest of us are forewarned.

shell_belle

MysteryMe wrote: »

Shellebelle, what's the first letter of the offending MSC please so that the rest of us are forewarned.

Think Maccie D's with a different coloured sign - does that help?

evelyns2000

shell_belle wrote: »

Think Maccie D's with a different coloured sign - does that help?

No. I'm confused. Sorry.